The process of growth and development can be seen from the very beginning. The Law itself grew. There was first the Ten Words inscribed on two tables of stone. Prof. Briggs (Intr.) thinks that, " If any document fulfils all the tests of canonicity, the Tables of the Law certainly do." There was next the Book of the Covenant (Exodus xxxiv., Judaic narrative; Exodus xx. 22-xxiii., Ephraimitic narrative), which Moses " read in the audience of the people " when God made a covenant with them (see BOOK OF THE COVENANT). After this came the promulgation of the Deuteronomic Code, which was found in the Temple in the reign of Josiah (G21 B.C.). The event is recorded in II. Kings Chronicles xxxiv.-xxxv. The book is described as "the book of the law " (II. Kings xxii. S, 11) or " the book of the covenant" (II. Kings xxiii. 2, 21; II. Chronicles xxxiv. 30), or " the book of the law of Yahweh " (II. Chron. xxxiv. 14). Modern scholarship seems to have demonstrated that this book was nothing more than the Deuteronomic Code. The next stage brings us to the public recognition, through the influence of Ezra and Nehemiah, of the first division of the present Hebrew Canon, The Law. The account of this event is given in Nehemiah viii.-x. The Pentateuch, as promulgated by Ezra and Nehemiah in 444 B.C.. was practically the Law as we have it. But only the Law was made authorita tive by Ezra. Nehemiah viii.-x. speaks of nothing else. The Samaritans, moreover, adopted as their sacred book only the Pentateuch. This may be taken to prove that at late as 333 B.C. (according to Josephus' dating) or at any rate as late as about 410 B.C. (according to the calculation of many modern scholars) the Law stood alone (see SAMARITAN PENTATEUCH). It is true that in later times the Samaritans possessed a Book of Joshua. But it resembles the canonical book very little. As Wildeboer says, " it is really the beginning of a chronicle relating the history down to the time of the Roman emperors. Besides, the close connection of Joshna with the Pentateuch, taken together with the fact that Joshua is peculiarly the tribal hero of Ephraim. makes this exception quite explicable." In the case of the second group of writings, the Prophets, we have no historical accounts of a kind of public recognition or canonisation. But here again the process was gradual. The ultimate recognition of an authoritative group of prophetical writings was the result of a national crisis. The prophets were naturally speakers rather than writers, but at a comparatively early date they found it convenient to commit their words to writing. Thus a prophetic literature began to arise in the Sth century B.C. This was read even before the Exile, and during and after the Exile, was much studied. There is evidence of this in the books of Deuteronomy, Isaiah, Ezekiel, and Jeremiah. It is not difficult to account for the veneration with which this literature came to be re garded. The situation is well described Smith (O.T.J.C.). " When the national existence with which the ancient religion of Israel was so closely inter twined was hopelessly shattered, when the voice of the prophets was stilled, and the public services of the sanct uary no longer called the devout together, the whole continuance of the spiritual faith rested upon the remem brance that the prophets of the Lord had foreseen the catastrophe, and had shown how to reconcile It with the undiminished trust in Jehovah, the God of Israel. The written word acquired a fresh significance for the relig ious life, and the books of the prophets, with those records of the ancient history which were either already framed in the mould of prophetic thought, or were cast in that mould by editors of the time of the Exile, became the main support of the faithful, who felt as they had never felt before, that the words of Jehovah were pure words, silver sevenfold tried, a sure treasure In every time of need." The prophetic writings gradually took firm hold of the hearts of the godly in Israel. Con sequently, " these books had no need to be brought from Babylon with the approval of a royal rescript, or laid before the nation by the authority of a Tirshatha. The only form of public recognition which was wanting, and which followed in due course, was the practice of reading from the Prophets in the public worship of the synagogue. It required no more formal process than the natural use made of this ancient literature, to bring It little by little into the shape of a fixed collection." The collection was not at once formally fixed, because for Ezra's purpose, that of establishing a theocracy, the Priestly Law was of primary importance. When, and for what reasons, was it formally fixed? The strictly historical books known as " the former prophets " (Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings) immediately continue the narrative part of the Pentateuch, and are connected organically with it. It is reasonable therefore to suppose that these formed an early appendix, as it were, to the Law. " It is quite possible," says Wildeboer, " that the memory of the interval between the canonization of the historical books and of the prophetic writings proper is perpetuated by the order of the two groups of books and by the appella tion based upon it, Nebiim Rishonim and Aharonim." Wildeboer thinks that there is an element of truth in II. Maccabees ii. 13 which says that Nehemiah, " founding a library, gathered together the books about the kings and prophets and the books of David. and letters of kings about sacred gifts." Nehemiah collected a number of books; and this collection, which was held in high esteem, became the basis of the second and third parts of the Canon. At the same time he bad no intention of
ascribing canonical authority to this collection. A pre eminent place in it was taken by the books of Joshua, Judges. Samuel, and Kings. These formed the founda tion of the second division of the Canon, and in later times were rightly called Nebiim Rishonim. To this early collection was added in course of time the Nebiim Acbaronim. It has already been mentioned that the Book of Daniel is not included in the second division of the Canon. The true explanation of this seems to be that it did not gain canonical recognition until after the division had been closed. It has been thought, moreover, that the Book of Daniel Itself in ix. 2, where it speaks of " the books " assumes as well known a collection of prophetic writings. There are excellent reasons for concinding that the Book of Daniel was corn posed between the years 168 and 165 B.C. (see DANIEL, BOOK OF). Another clue may perhaps be found in the fact that Isaiah xxiv.-xxvi., which probably belongs to about 332 B.C., is included in the collection. This would suggest that the prophetico-historical and the other pro phetic writings were canonized some time after 332 B.C. and before 165 B.C. Wildeboer thinks that the date will probably have been about 200 B.C. Jesus ben Sirs is thought to lend support to this view When he mentions " the Twelve," it is supposed that he had in mind the technical name for the Twelve Minor Prophets. The Ecclesiasticus may be placed between the years 130 and 120 B.C. The Hebrew original falls between the years 190 and 170 B.C. In the Prologue to Eccleslasticus the grandson of Jesus ben Sira speaks of his grandfather as having " giving himself to the reading of the Law and the Prophets and other books of our fathers." Speaking of his own time, 'he says that " many and great things have been delivered unto us by the Law and the Prophets, and by others that have followed their steps." Such language has been taken to indicate that for some time the Law and the Prophets had been recog nized as clearly defined groups. After the time of Ezra, it was apparently the scribes of Jerusalem who determ ined what books should be regarded as sacred. In the case of the third division of the Canon, the Kethubim, historical statements as to the canonization are again wanting. But clearly here, as in the other groups, the collection was formed gradually. The beginning seems to have been made with the Book of Psalms. In the New Testatment we actually find a reference (Luke xxiv. 44) to "the Law and the Prophets and the Psalms." The third group may be supposed to have existed for a time as an undefined collection. But, as Wildeboer says, it was not every book that could gain admission to this indefinite group. " There were admitted to it only books written in Hebrew or Aramaic, which treated of the ancient history (Ruth, Chronicles), or gave information about the establishment of the new order of things (Ezra Nehemiah), or which were supposed to have been written by some famous person of ancient times (Proverbs, Eccles iastes, Canticles, Lamentations, Daniel, perhaps Job also); while Esther obtained admission (after much con troversy, as was the case with Ecclesiastes) because it was in complete harmony with the national sentiment of people and scribes alike." The Old Testament Canon seems to have been closed in the course of the second century, and not before. As Cornill says : " it was not Israel, not the Judaism of Ezra or of the Maccabees, that definitely fixed and established the Old Testament Canon, hut only Talmudical Judaism at its early stages for the purposes of self-preservation." Fliilscher thinks that there was pressing need for the Pharisees and Rabbis to assert the antiquity and authority of the classical writings. There had arisen a new literature which gave voice to the thoughts and hopes of the time, a literature such as had not previously existed, the Apocalyptic Literature (q.v.). It was eagerly accepted by the devout souls among the people, for it spoke of the realization of hopes in days not far distant, but within the reach of living men. And though it was really new, it professed to be old. It was received with such enthusiasm that, though it never really disputed the authority of the Torah and the other scriptures, it did as a matter of fact tend to overshadow the ancient literature. The books were put forward under the names and authority of the patriarchs. And, compared with the definite and detailed predictions of the Apocalyptic writers, what were the vague and general utterances of the prophets? What was the age of the Torah which Moses received compared to the revela tions which Noah, Enoch, and even Adam received in the earliest days? The Apocalyptic literature in fact assumed an air of superiority. Thus the position of the really ancient literature seemed to be threatened. Some thing had to be done to defend it. The final fixing of the Canon was a blow aimed at the apocalyptic literature. The Rabbis had come to look upon the apocalyptic wisdom and the apocalyptic writings with anxiety and even to show pronounced hostility towards them. And the oppos ition was most bitter and pronounced just at that time when the principle of the Canon was established. See F. Buhl; H. E. Ryle: W. Sanday, G. Wildeboer: W. H. Green, Introd. to the O.T., 199; G. Hblscher, Kanonisch and Apolcryph, 1905; C. Cornill, Intr.